Machen stuck to his doctrinal guns and his insistence on Christian doctrine, mission, and ministry in Christian churches—for a certain intolerance. And he paid dearly for it. 

Religious intolerance was no more welcome in Machen’s day than now. The same was true 2000 years ago in the polytheistic, polyamorous, anything-goes Roman Empire. Theology is necessarily mathematical, but have one god or many…just don’t be seen as dissing the emperor. The great sin was really exclusivity, regardless of your first-century mathematical-theological calculations:

That brings us to our second point. The primitive Church, we have just seen, was radically doctrinal. In the second place, it was radically intolerant. In being radically intolerant, as in being radically doctrinal, it placed itself squarely in opposition to the spirit of that age. That was an age of syncretism and tolerance in religion; it was an age of what J. S. Phillimore has called “the courtly polygamies of the soul.” But with that tolerance, with those courtly polygamies of the soul, the primitive Christian Church would have nothing to do. It demanded a completely exclusive devotion. A man could not be a worshiper of the God of the Christians and at the same time be a worshiper of other gods; he could not accept the salvation offered by Christ and at the same time admit that for other people there might be some other way of salvation; he could not agree to refrain from proselytizing among men of other faiths, but came forward, no matter what it might cost, with a universal appeal. That is what I mean by saying that the primitive Christian Church was radically intolerant.

It’s pretty obvious what “courtly polygamies of the soul” and what toleration Machen had in mind in 1933:

Just the year before a very respectable call for tolerant religion had gone out, funded by no less than zillionaire John D. Rockefeller, one of the mainline’s main moneymen.

“In 1932, the book “Rethinking Missions” was published. It stated that its aim was to do exactly what the title suggested, namely, to change the purpose of sending foreign missionaries to the world. Its aim was to seek the truth from the religions to which it went, rather than to present the truth of historic Christianity. There should be a common search for truth as a result of missionary ministry, was the consensus of this book. (Former presbyterian missionary) Pearl Buck agreed one hundred per cent with the results of this book. She believed that every American Christian should read it.” ¹

Machen’s call to intolerance was not unreasonable at all. What he wanted was a Christian church (and hence Christian ministers and missionaries) who were Christian.

This was no new concern for Machen. Ten years earlier in Christianity and Liberalism he had already contended that “what the liberal theologian has retained after abandoning to the enemy one Christian doctrine after another is not Christianity at all, but a religion which is so entirely different from Christianity as to be long in a distinct category…despite the liberal use of traditional phraseology modern liberalism not only is a different religion from Christianity but belongs in a totally different class of religions.” One might conceivably accuse Machen of unoriginality or cussed stick-in-the-muddiness. What you cannot accuse him of is inconsistency.

Read More